Character Archetypes: Layne v. Weiland

Do archetypes provide the best structure to develop characters?

K.M. Weiland’s book, Structuring Your Novel, was a game-changer for me. I used it extensively to re-outline and revise my (unfinished) novel. It was so impactful that I bought her other books on writing, including Writing Archetypical Character Arcs (which I’ve not yet read). I've also been listening to her podcast, “Helping Writers Become Authors.” Weiland swears by character archetypes and frequently posts on how useful they are. She has detailed character interviews to help with this development.

Last month, Thomas introduced me to Hilary Layne with her video on “The Absolute Degeneracy of Modern Writing.” (Thanks, Thomas!) I became a fan, subscribed to her Substack and YouTube channel, “The Second Story",” and started reading her serialized novel The Blue Prince.

Layne treats archetypes with contempt. In her video “Creating Interesting Characters - A Beginner’s Guide,” she instead lays out a simple “character sheet” system built around “three ‘C’s” — Complexity, Creativity, and Consistency. It keeps the focus on material that’s relevant to the plot, and recommends an individualized character interview that develops with character and plot.

While Weiland’s work on structure and theme has been helpful, I find Layne’s approach to character development compelling, and maybe a bit more aligned with “the Snowflake Method.” I’m curious about other writer’s thoughts and experiences around character development.

What do you think? Have you found character archetypes useful? Would Layne’s approach work better for first draft, with Weiland’s archetypal approach helping in analyzing early drafts and revision?

And who else would enjoy listening to Thomas interview these two women?